The challenges of attempting to legalise same-sex marriage

Challenges of legalising same-sex marriage

7:00AM GMT 11 Mar 2012

SIR – By definition marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Thankfully Cardinal Keith O’Brien has the courage to speak the truth and to spell out the social implications of “gay marriage” (Comment, March 4).

I’m sure many of the silent majority in this country would agree with the Cardinal that it is “staggeringly arrogant” of this Government to assume “the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage”.

When is David Cameron going to stop allowing liberal factions to exercise influence and affect legislature in a way that goes far beyond their numerical mandate? I’m sure that I’m not alone in being very disappointed by his lack of leadership and of consistent integrity.

June Mundell Castle Cary, Somerset

SIR – How can a celibate Cardinal say that civil partnerships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of those involved?

Related Articles

My partner and I were together for 15 years, until he died last year, and we became civil partners as soon as we could in 2006. Far from being harmed, our well-being was much enhanced.

Michael Plumbe Hastings, East Sussex

SIR – A political party will follow a successful leader anywhere but what if the leader’s compass is giving strange directions? David Cameron is more concerned about same-sex marriage than he is about abolishing the 50p tax that harms jobs and economic growth.

David Saunders Sidmouth, Devon

SIR – Cardinal O’Brien asks “Can a word [marriage] whose meaning has been understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?”

However he has overlooked the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which significantly changed the meaning of marriage in England and Wales. If it has been done before, it can be done again. Using an argument as flawed as that, how can the Cardinal expect his views to be taken seriously?

Richard Miles London WC1

SIR – It seems that not only does David Cameron want to redefine the meaning of marriage but also the meaning of Conservative.

W P Kitcat Abinger, Surrey

SIR – Cardinal O’Brien claims that Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, defines marriage as “a relationship between men and women”.

What Article 16 actually says is that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” It makes no explicit reference to the marriage’s participants needing to be of the same gender, nor does it expressly allow for limitation on grounds of sexual orientation.

Cardinal O’Brien is, of course, entitled to his interpretation, but many of the world’s leading jurists disagree with him. The issue is anything but crystal clear.

Benjamin Woolgar Oxford

SIR – Surely the leaders of the Christian churches would do better to regard the proposal for same-sex marriage as a change in the meaning of the word rather than an assault on the institution?

Already the Oxford English Dictionary quotes alternative uses of the word marriage, such as card games and philosophy, and it is sometimes used in engineering.

The service for the solemnisation of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer instructs Christians to consider “the causes for which matrimony was ordained. First, it was ordained for the procreation of children.” Christians could describe themselves as being in matrimony with, rather than married to, their spouses.

Basil Dewing Great Malvern, Worcestershire

Looking after a new life

SIR — In opposing a report in the Journal of Medical Ethics which declared that newborn babies do not “have a moral right to life”, Jenny McCartney writes that “a foetus tends to accrue value from the moment of its conception, in line with the mother’s physical and emotional investment in its existence” (Comment, March 4).

This is surely correct: but “value” does not seem a satisfactory counter-argument to the logic that brought the authors of the report to their grotesque conclusion. As Evelyn Waugh wrote, “quantitative judgments don’t apply”. It is the very fragility of a newly conceived life, and its absolute dependence upon its mother, that leads to her duty of care, and the physical and emotional investment which Miss McCartney calls “value”.

Samuel Johnson London NW5

SIR – Jenny McCartney is absolutely correct in her condemnation of those advocating abortion. That Professor Julian Savulescu can describe opponents as enemies of a liberal society illustrates how much the label liberal has become corrupted.

Once liberals pursued moral objectives such as the abolition of the slave trade, rights for workers and the emancipation of women, but now they are for the most part intolerant bigots.

Colin Bullen Tonbridge, Kent

Face value

SIR – In his report on David Jones, the creator of Fireman Sam, being detained by officials at Gatwick (February 26), Jason Lewis explained that although Department for Transport rules do not prevent people covering their faces at airports for religious reasons, all passengers must show their faces to UK Border Agency officials when they pass through passport control, and “Muslim women who wear hijabs can request that their identity is checked by a female immigration officer and they can also ask that they be taken to a private room before they remove their head wear.”

I hope that this ruling is not restricted to Muslim women. My wife who, as an Orthodox Jewish married woman covers her hair in public, will be pleased to be able to quote it next time border officials try to force her to remove her headscarf in public as happened two years ago. Since then she has preferred to wear a wig when travelling which seems not to cause any security concerns.

Martin D Stern Salford

Adapted anachronisms

SIR – Bryan McAlley (Letters, March 4) is not the only person driven to distraction by the use of modern idioms on television programmes set in the Fifties or Sixties.

Downton Abbey is full of them. Just one example: you would ring someone on the phone, not “call” them. But the most frequent anachronism is “I don’t have” instead of “I haven’t got”. Why don’t the producers just ask someone over 70 to check the scripts?

If you want to know how it should be done, just watch the old Upstairs Downstairs - but not the current, vastly inferior, series.

Richard Vaughan-Davies Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire

SIR – With no expense spared to engage the best set and costume designers, it must surely be worth engaging the services of a language historian to avoid anachronisms in period dialogue. In addition, the services of an aviation historian in Call the Midwife would have avoided the appearance of a modern jet flying over the set.

David Taylor Lymington, Hampshire

The legislation trap

SIR – “We need to cut red tape for small businesses” says Syed Kamell MEP (Letters, March 4). I’ve lost count of the number of times this has been said by politicians. As long as we remain in the bureaucratic nightmare of the EU it will increase.

In 1993 the late Sir James Goldsmith, writing about the European Union in his book The Trap, said “If you employ 600 people to make laws, they make laws”.

No doubt that 600 have spawned many more lawmakers since then.

Edward Huxley Thorpe, Surrey

Vegetable medley

SIR – Although, like Mr Norsworthy (Letters, March 4), we have been eating greenhouse tomatoes through January, conditions in most of the country do not replicate benign Cornwall. These fruits also lose a considerable amount of their flavour once the summer sun has gone, and despite protestations about British being best, I find that tomatoes from sunnier climbs are rather superior in winter.

We have been enjoying winter radish however as this maintains its flavour regardless, and I would recommend it to those who enjoy the peppery taste.

Alan Ripley Aldeburgh, Suffolk

Airport capacity

SIR – Aviation plays a vital role in the success of the British economy (“PM urged to support Heathrow”, Business, March 4). If businesses cannot access foreign markets, and cannot be easily accessed by foreign investors, the nation suffers. We are calling on the Government to ensure that Britain’s airports are used to their fullest capacity.

Airports outside the South East can provide additional capacity. Birmingham Airport could double its passenger numbers today. Manchester Airport could handle 50 million passengers a year by 2050. Airports such as Liverpool, Manston, Doncaster and Blackpool could collectively accommodate tens of millions of extra passengers a year.

In order to realise this capacity, links via road and rail need to be improved. This would lead to more competition between airport operators, increase the quality of services available nationally and relieve pressure on airports around London and the South East.

We ask that these issues be examined by the Government in its aviation review and that the Government commission independent research to benefit all British airports.